At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

What motivates you? If you're an American then you're most likely interested in whether or not your country can continue to run roughshod over the ME and eventually the rest of the world, due to it's military might.

The answer is NO! Military might has been equalized since the end of WW2 by nuclear weapons. Now, as is the case with both Russia and China, other sorts of 'might' come into play.

There was a short period of time immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union that the US was feeling it's oats and embarked on colonizing former Soviet 'protectorates' (rhetorically speaking) in the ME. It gained some success right up until Russia began to apply some reverse pressure to look after it's interests in the ME. Hence, the stalemate in US progress with Syria and Iran and the resultant hold on US war plans which were made clear by Wesley Clarke.

Think of 'might' in a different context now, especially as regards China!

First thing to consider is that we should only look at real~ish world situations. Shockingly, in the real world, people disagree. They don't always see things eye to eye. If everyone was 100% on the same page, then nearly any political ideology would work, thrive, and no one would feel victimized. Obviously, such is not the case. Yes, you can have small pockets (usually communes) that will voluntarily form, but it is unreasonable that they will last more than a generation or two (as kids grow up, they may or may not agree and the conflict that they avoided by voluntarily joining goes out the window).

Lets say two neighbors have their property separated by a hedge. Owner A (we'll call him Alex) believes that while the hedge is the line, the hedge itself is on his side, so it is his hedge to trim and style. Owner Z (we'll call him Zack) believes that the hedge is on his side.

Now, whenever one person trims the hedge, the other believe that they are having their property violated. If we take the two extreme ends of the political spectrum, totalitarianism and anarchy (which we'll split into two forms of anarchy in a moment) and look at how each might end the dispute.

First, totalitarianism would clearly be a government body that would stipulate who "owns" (or more accurately, who gets to "use" that land/hedge) and if anyone disagrees and resists their judgement, they have a significant might (usually in the form of a police force) to ensure that their decision stands. I don't think there would be any disagreement that the governmental body would use force and might to enforce the decision reached.

Now, lets go to anarchy. For this, we'll do the simplified "chaos" anarchy and go into different organized variations next (so if you're an anarchist that hates when anarchy is linked with chaos, skip to below). If there is a dispute, the two have the options of working it out, or fighting for their beliefs. In the case of "fighting" clearly the "mightier" one wins and claims the hedge. If they work it out, one person (or both) will be losing what they believe is theirs and as such, begrudge the other (which leads to future conflict and eventual fighting). This especially rings true if one side is more mighty than the other to where they know that they would win in a fight. What reason do they have to give in? Working it out can typically only work when both sides are equal in "might" and so both have a lot to lose in a conflict (such balance is rarely maintained, especially if grudges form).

Now, to organized anarchy such as market anarchy or anarchy-capitalism. In such cases, many people will hire a protection company to protect their "rights" (personal rights and property rights, inb4 "property rights are personal rights"). We can call these protection companies, or insurance companies or whatevers, but basically, under anarchy, there would likely be a number (unless they had successfully weeded out their competition and formed a monopoly [hey look, anarchy naturally forming into a state, and thus a failure of anarchy, wait, that can be for a different thread]) that people could choose from that outlined what they viewed as "rights" and what their policies protected. Part of this would include a way to protect and enforce those policies. A protection company that has no power to protect will go out of business. This may not always be physical force, it may be economic force (say part of the deal of signing with this company is that you agree that you will not do business with anyone that violates the companies' protections, so anyone considering violating a policy holder risks not being able to buy food from the markets, see the doctors, etc). But whether it is economic might or physical might, might is needed to defend those policies.

Now, lets look at an interesting case where both Alex and Zack (I went to the trouble of naming these people and I'm just now using their names) each have DIFFERENT companies. Obviously the dispute is passed up to their companies (just like an insurance claim, at least, that is how most hypotheticals predict it would work) and now the companies hash it out. But this similarly goes with the chaos anarchy (haha, now all you that skipped that part have to go back), with one fun added effect (thanks to capitalism). If one company if 100 times the size of the other, what motivation does the large company have to not stand up to their PAYING customer? Obviously any company that doesn't stand behind their customers risks getting the reputation that they don't stand for their own policies. This hurts their potential sales and growth and ultimately collapses the company (it would be like an insurance company that never paid out their claims, or frequently didn't and got a rep for dodging claims).

So this covers both ends of the extreme, but what in the middle would really work? Any small group (like a voluntary commune) would still have to deal with people outside of the commune that are not members.

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

I don't think so.

Honestly, I think every structure has this to some degree, even in anarchism. I find the question to be more about when is it right or wrong as oppose to if it is right or wrong.

I think this is a good framing of the question.

I think the answer to the underlined is that when "might" is deemed "wrong" it is because it has lost whatever constituted its "might". Therefore, what makes one position "right" in the face of a current power is whether or not there is a more powerful force capable of superseding it.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/19/2014 10:14:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Now that I have some time, I will expand into this.[almost tl;dr]

Surprisingly I read all of this. I agree, and came to a similar conclusion a while back. I've been going off about "right by might" throughout my time here.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

Ore_Ele, my view is that right is determined by our feelings and emotions with respect to experiences and issues. However, it is might (armies, the government, the national and state vote) that reinforce what right is.

Might by itself is only a tool of social implementation and reinforcement (it isn't by itself the determinant of what right is).

For example, the government can place tanks and armies on the streets to bully a citizenry, but when destruction and carnage occurs it's going to create a lot of real tension and pain, which will nurture hostilities.

Right is decided by our experiences, by our wants and our feelings. Might is only a tool of policy implementation and reinforcement.

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

Ore_Ele, my view is that right is determined by our feelings and emotions with respect to experiences and issues. However, it is might (armies, the government, the national and state vote) that reinforce what right is.

Might by itself is only a tool of social implementation and reinforcement (it isn't by itself the determinant of what right is).

For example, the government can place tanks and armies on the streets to bully a citizenry, but when destruction and carnage occurs it's going to create a lot of real tension and pain, which will nurture hostilities.

Right is decided by our experiences, by our wants and our feelings. Might is only a tool of policy implementation and reinforcement.

To sum up my perspective:

Might isn't right. Right is determined by our experiences, by our wants and by what we feel.

No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Well, might can never make a state objectively right/correct/truthful when it is not, but I don't think that is what you meant. Might can, in the end, make a state widely accepted as right. Moreover, I would argue that right makes might as far as human behavior goes: states are composed of those who are expert at predicting and manipulating human behavior, who use this power to harness and direct the passions of the masses, and then compete with other individuals who possess the same powers of perception and persuasion. A big problem with all governments is that the ability to understand and direct human behavior does not necessarily always go hand in hand with the ability to understand and direct the rest of the natural world. The more cloistered and insular the ruling class becomes, the more likely they are to blunder when forced to make decisions outside of their political framework.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective and each structure has its own views of what is a "right" and what is not. If you lack the power to enforce or defend what you believe is your right, then you clearly don't have that right.

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective and each structure has its own views of what is a "right" and what is not. If you lack the power to enforce or defend what you believe is your right, then you clearly don't have that right.

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective

No, they are objective facts that mark the borders of how a set of values proceeding from a single element of subjectivity; a single choice of goal, can be achieved in the special case of an objective reality that contains multiple parties with goals that lead to mutual needs.

and each structure has its own views of what is a "right" and what is not.

Structures don't view things.

If you lack the power to enforce or defend what you believe is your right, then you clearly don't have that right.

That's not what "rights" mean.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

Ore_Ele, my view is that right is determined by our feelings and emotions with respect to experiences and issues. However, it is might (armies, the government, the national and state vote) that reinforce what right is.

Might by itself is only a tool of social implementation and reinforcement (it isn't by itself the determinant of what right is).

For example, the government can place tanks and armies on the streets to bully a citizenry, but when destruction and carnage occurs it's going to create a lot of real tension and pain, which will nurture hostilities.

Right is decided by our experiences, by our wants and our feelings. Might is only a tool of policy implementation and reinforcement.

To sum up my perspective:

Might isn't right. Right is determined by our experiences, by our wants and by what we feel.

Those experiences and wants are shaped by our environs and our reactions to them. If you have the power to manipulate your surroundings, then you have the power to manipulate your experiences. This would all corroborate that might makes right.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

A Constitutional Republic via rule of law.

It still requires the highest degree of might to enforces its views of rights. A piece of paper that has no force behind it cannot protect the "rights" it states.

At 3/20/2014 6:55:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective and each structure has its own views of what is a "right" and what is not. If you lack the power to enforce or defend what you believe is your right, then you clearly don't have that right.

Underlined the key terms that make the arguments valid. Without the underlined, any and all political structures lose validity.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/20/2014 6:54:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:Well, might can never make a state objectively right/correct/truthful when it is not, but I don't think that is what you meant. Might can, in the end, make a state widely accepted as right. Moreover, I would argue that right makes might as far as human behavior goes: states are composed of those who are expert at predicting and manipulating human behavior, who use this power to harness and direct the passions of the masses, and then compete with other individuals who possess the same powers of perception and persuasion. A big problem with all governments is that the ability to understand and direct human behavior does not necessarily always go hand in hand with the ability to understand and direct the rest of the natural world. The more cloistered and insular the ruling class becomes, the more likely they are to blunder when forced to make decisions outside of their political framework.

Isn't the underlined all aspects of "might"? After all, that is one valid conception of "power".

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/20/2014 6:54:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:Well, might can never make a state objectively right/correct/truthful when it is not, but I don't think that is what you meant. Might can, in the end, make a state widely accepted as right. Moreover, I would argue that right makes might as far as human behavior goes: states are composed of those who are expert at predicting and manipulating human behavior, who use this power to harness and direct the passions of the masses, and then compete with other individuals who possess the same powers of perception and persuasion. A big problem with all governments is that the ability to understand and direct human behavior does not necessarily always go hand in hand with the ability to understand and direct the rest of the natural world. The more cloistered and insular the ruling class becomes, the more likely they are to blunder when forced to make decisions outside of their political framework.

Isn't the underlined all aspects of "might"? After all, that is one valid conception of "power".

Yes, but my point is that such might is born of and sustained by an understanding of human nature and a willingness to manipulate. Many people see it as a static quality that a person, class, or office possesses, and I don't think that this view is accurate.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 3/20/2014 6:54:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:Well, might can never make a state objectively right/correct/truthful when it is not, but I don't think that is what you meant. Might can, in the end, make a state widely accepted as right. Moreover, I would argue that right makes might as far as human behavior goes: states are composed of those who are expert at predicting and manipulating human behavior, who use this power to harness and direct the passions of the masses, and then compete with other individuals who possess the same powers of perception and persuasion. A big problem with all governments is that the ability to understand and direct human behavior does not necessarily always go hand in hand with the ability to understand and direct the rest of the natural world. The more cloistered and insular the ruling class becomes, the more likely they are to blunder when forced to make decisions outside of their political framework.

Isn't the underlined all aspects of "might"? After all, that is one valid conception of "power".

Yes, but my point is that such might is born of and sustained by an understanding of human nature and a willingness to manipulate. Many people see it as a static quality that a person, class, or office possesses, and I don't think that this view is accurate.

Very true. I would just add that such manipulation doesn't necessarily have to be truthful or accurate, and so to attach a concept of "rightness" without the underlying might is IMHO fallacious.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective

No, they are objective facts that mark the borders of how a set of values proceeding from a single element of subjectivity; a single choice of goal, can be achieved in the special case of an objective reality that contains multiple parties with goals that lead to mutual needs.

Objective means existing outside of our own opinions. A goal is an opinion, therefore anything that is derived from that opinion is subjective, not objective.

and each structure has its own views of what is a "right" and what is not.

Structures don't view things.

Yes they do, see how easy that is?

If you lack the power to enforce or defend what you believe is your right, then you clearly don't have that right.

That's not what "rights" mean.

It doesn't matter what "right" means. If it has been taken by force from you, than you no longer have it. You may think you do, just like I may think I have a million dollars, but that doesn't make it any more true.

At 3/18/2014 11:11:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:This is something I've been pondering for a little while. Is there any politica structure, whatsoever, that does not fall into this?

Ore_Ele, my view is that right is determined by our feelings and emotions with respect to experiences and issues. However, it is might (armies, the government, the national and state vote) that reinforce what right is.

Might by itself is only a tool of social implementation and reinforcement (it isn't by itself the determinant of what right is).

For example, the government can place tanks and armies on the streets to bully a citizenry, but when destruction and carnage occurs it's going to create a lot of real tension and pain, which will nurture hostilities.

Right is decided by our experiences, by our wants and our feelings. Might is only a tool of policy implementation and reinforcement.

To sum up my perspective:

Might isn't right. Right is determined by our experiences, by our wants and by what we feel.

Those experiences and wants are shaped by our environs and our reactions to them. If you have the power to manipulate your surroundings, then you have the power to manipulate your experiences. This would all corroborate that might makes right.

I understand what you're saying, wrichcirw. The ability to influence our surroundings is certainly "might". However, this isn't the reason, I believe, why people follow authority and the laws of a community in the first place. Laws get broken all the time, and people provide a myriad of reasons why they break them. People break the law and disregard authority because they believe either the law doesn't benefit them or the authority isn't recognizing their needs (or their wants).

This underscores something that's already well understood in political philosophy: a community of people enact laws (or establish an authority or further reinforce an existing authority) when they believe these laws (or the authority) will benefit them, will establish the order necessary to make life enjoyable to them . . . this is what gives laws and that authority (usually a government) the justice and right to exist.

Revolutions (social rebellions), civil wars, political transformations happen when people lose their faith in the laws of society or in the government implementing them. History is a great example of how might is constantly undermined, and for reasons dealing with social feelings and wants. Its the emotions, the philosophical views we subscribe to, our expectations for life that determine right. Might by itself doesn't justify anything. We often criticize our own government (as do others around the world) when we feel it didn't go about doing something in a just way.

It's these inner feelings and the beliefs we subscribe to, our views of how life should be, that decide whether something is just or not.

An authority can implement laws all it wants, but if people decide that a certain law doesn't satisfy their view of how life should be, it's going to exist dubiously - no matter how many guns the authority points at us.

Revolutions happen all time. No government today justifies its actions or its existence solely on the view that it has more might. They usually justify their actions on some personal moral or on some theme that people can see social justice in.

Again, that's because its our views, our wants, our feelings that decide what is right . . . not power by itself.

Juan Pablo said: "Revolutions happen all time. No government today justifies its actions or its existence solely on the view that it has more might. They usually justify their actions on some personal moral or on some theme that people can see social justice in."

Think about that a bit Juan. People's moral views are subtly changed bit by bit by might. What was not justified because of it being morally wrong can become right through the insidious exercise of propaganda.

Here's an example: Those who have been subjected to the propaganda are now under the opinion that the Iraq war was completely justified while at the same time firmly believing that Russia had no right to hold a referendum in the Crimea and then take the Crimea.

Perhaps as of yet it's still only 25% of the American people who are firm believers and would pursue the issue by going to war, but a little convincing could increase that to over 50%. With a leader who was onside with beating the war drums I would suggest that the US would already be there.

I believe that might, along with enough reinforcing propaganda can turn nearly anything that is wrong into right.

At 3/20/2014 4:31:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:No political structure does, as none ensures "right." Might makes might and that is all it makes. Liberty must be defended through vigilant human action, no mere set of electoral principles can ensure it.

"Rights" are subjective

No, they are objective facts that mark the borders of how a set of values proceeding from a single element of subjectivity; a single choice of goal, can be achieved in the special case of an objective reality that contains multiple parties with goals that lead to mutual needs.

Objective means existing outside of our own opinions. A goal is an opinion, therefore anything that is derived from that opinion is subjective, not objective.

A fact about what actions achieve a goal is objective. The fact is derived from the objective definition of the goal, not the subjective choice of it. The fact exists "outside your opinion," and the goal does too whether you choose it or not, for it is a fact that beings exist who are motivated by that choice.

Yes they do, see how easy that is?

Where are the eyes and the visual processing centers?

It doesn't matter what "right" means. If it has been taken by force from you, than you no longer have it.

Do I no longer have a goal, if I am prevented by some obstacle from achieving it?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 3/22/2014 11:30:05 AM, monty1 wrote:Juan Pablo said: "Revolutions happen all time. No government today justifies its actions or its existence solely on the view that it has more might. They usually justify their actions on some personal moral or on some theme that people can see social justice in."

Think about that a bit Juan. People's moral views are subtly changed bit by bit by might. What was not justified because of it being morally wrong can become right through the insidious exercise of propaganda.

Here's an example: Those who have been subjected to the propaganda are now under the opinion that the Iraq war was completely justified while at the same time firmly believing that Russia had no right to hold a referendum in the Crimea and then take the Crimea.

Perhaps as of yet it's still only 25% of the American people who are firm believers and would pursue the issue by going to war, but a little convincing could increase that to over 50%. With a leader who was onside with beating the war drums I would suggest that the US would already be there.

I believe that might, along with enough reinforcing propaganda can turn nearly anything that is wrong into right.

Monty, I disagree. I think you're very wrong here. It doesn't come down to might . . . it comes down to emotions, to what we feel . . . this is what justifies actions taken (or unjustifies them) in our minds.

All war does (or the implementation of an action) is provide an outcome. The outcome doesn't justify the action or the war. Rather it finalizes (at least temporarily) the issue or matter.

I mean think about this. There are still people today that argue that American Revolution was wrong; there are still people that support Hitler and Nazi Germany; others still proudly support the American Confederates of the Civil War.

Even after the Civil War, the South still found ways to disrupt the policies inflicted on it by the North on grounds of tradition and emotional appeal. But the South was in no mood to fight the North again because it lost a quarter of million of its fighting men (a heavy chunk of that generation).

As I stated earlier in another post, all might does is it implement a result. However, that doesn't justify the result. In order for an action to be right it has to sit well with respect to our views of fairness and social justice. Might doesn't have the power to do that.

That's also the reason why history is progressive. UnJust actions genuinely lead to unstable results. Humans genuinely need to feel good about the results in order for them to be accepted.

If not you just get more problems later down the road.

My position continues to be that it is our collective emotions, our beliefs, our wants that decide rightness.

At 3/22/2014 11:30:05 AM, monty1 wrote:Juan Pablo said: "Revolutions happen all time. No government today justifies its actions or its existence solely on the view that it has more might. They usually justify their actions on some personal moral or on some theme that people can see social justice in."

Think about that a bit Juan. People's moral views are subtly changed bit by bit by might. What was not justified because of it being morally wrong can become right through the insidious exercise of propaganda.

Here's an example: Those who have been subjected to the propaganda are now under the opinion that the Iraq war was completely justified while at the same time firmly believing that Russia had no right to hold a referendum in the Crimea and then take the Crimea.

Perhaps as of yet it's still only 25% of the American people who are firm believers and would pursue the issue by going to war, but a little convincing could increase that to over 50%. With a leader who was onside with beating the war drums I would suggest that the US would already be there.

I believe that might, along with enough reinforcing propaganda can turn nearly anything that is wrong into right.

Monty, I disagree. I think you're very wrong here. It doesn't come down to might . . . it comes down to emotions, to what we feel . . . this is what justifies actions taken (or unjustifies them) in our minds.

All war does (or the implementation of an action) is provide an outcome. The outcome doesn't justify the action or the war. Rather it finalizes (at least temporarily) the issue or matter.

I mean think about this. There are still people today that argue that American Revolution was wrong; there are still people that support Hitler and Nazi Germany; others still proudly support the American Confederates of the Civil War.

Even after the Civil War, the South still found ways to disrupt the policies inflicted on it by the North on grounds of tradition and emotional appeal. But the South was in no mood to fight the North again because it lost a quarter of million of its fighting men (a heavy chunk of that generation).

As I stated earlier in another post, all might does is it implement a result. However, that doesn't justify the result. In order for an action to be right it has to sit well with respect to our views of fairness and social justice. Might doesn't have the power to do that.

That's also the reason why history is progressive. UnJust actions genuinely lead to unstable results. Humans genuinely need to feel good about the results in order for them to be accepted.

If not you just get more problems later down the road.

My position continues to be that it is our collective emotions, our beliefs, our wants that decide rightness.

Might by itself doesn't have the power to decide matters for us. There has to be a genuinely satisfying reason for us to emotional approve of our result.

At 3/22/2014 11:30:05 AM, monty1 wrote:Juan Pablo said: "Revolutions happen all time. No government today justifies its actions or its existence solely on the view that it has more might. They usually justify their actions on some personal moral or on some theme that people can see social justice in."

Think about that a bit Juan. People's moral views are subtly changed bit by bit by might. What was not justified because of it being morally wrong can become right through the insidious exercise of propaganda.

Here's an example: Those who have been subjected to the propaganda are now under the opinion that the Iraq war was completely justified while at the same time firmly believing that Russia had no right to hold a referendum in the Crimea and then take the Crimea.

Perhaps as of yet it's still only 25% of the American people who are firm believers and would pursue the issue by going to war, but a little convincing could increase that to over 50%. With a leader who was onside with beating the war drums I would suggest that the US would already be there.

I believe that might, along with enough reinforcing propaganda can turn nearly anything that is wrong into right.

Let me put it to you another way:

Even if Hitler would have won WWII, he still would have lost in history, simply because his policies sought to make inferior the non-Aryan races.

Well, there's many more non-Aryans then there was Germans. The sheer fact that diversity exist would have undermined any agenda he would have had in the world. The need for non-Aryan humans to feel equal and be treated fairly simply would have undermined any agenda he would have taken with the world.